Noise, Parliament and Manchester

[Bally Heck]

Just been watching the Right Honourable Member for Tatton (George Osborne) displaying his awsome grasp of our industry on lunchtime news.

I believe his well heeled constituency is the one which has pilots doing aerobatics trying to follow noise abatement SIDs on 24L/R at MAN.

Any t' road, 6500 of us apparently took liberties with it last year interupting croquet games and garden parties. And worse still we did it deliberately "because we know we can get away with it".

Mr Osborne is going to try to have fines levied on operators who flaunt these procedures.

He is also going to try to have arrival noise abatement procedures instigated. This presumably means that you will have to track 095 degrees to intercept the LLZ at 3.2d when making an approach to 06.

On the plus side, he wants night flights stopped out of MAN.

I am all for that one :cool:

[cossack]

BH
3.2 DME MCT.
That's 0.9 DME 06R ILS.
Way to fly 'em. :D

[Bally Heck]

Bugger

That's me picked up another bloody noise abatement fine then. At least I avoided the 30 degree turn at 250 ft

I wonder how the Right Honourable commutes to London!

I wonder why the residents of Stockport, Wythenshawe, etc don't have this problem!

[jumpseater]

Bally,
There is currently no statutory definition of 'on' or 'off' track, therefore any airport trying to penalise financially for track violations will have a challenge on their hands. In due course however (scuse pun) I anticipate there will be a definition which will allow financial penalties to be applied, as per noise violations currently.

[sky9]

The noise routes don't comply with ICAO criteria either so even though you are off track on the airport noise routes you could fully comply with the ICAO criteria - but then why lets facts get into the way of a good story.

It would be so much better if MP's would get their facts right BEFORE speaking.

[chiglet]

Donkeys ago, [well before R2] ATC Ops had several maps showing the SIDs...and ALL digressions thereon :eek: This was wit eighties tecnology.I was told that a combination of the ATM [DFTI, as was] and the noise monitor points helped to catch the transgressors, and if they didn't have NSD [none standard dep] on the strip, then they were fined! :(
I don't know how much has changed.
p.s. A lady moved into a house with an approach light in the garden because she LIKES aeroplanes :D
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: chiglet ]

[sky9]

I have taken the liberty of copying the URL the Hansard report of the UK House of Commons adjournment debate on aircraft noise.

Apart from not knowing his west from his east I leave others to decide the value of the contribution.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/cm010717/halltext/10717h05.htm#10717h05_head0

Personally I cannot see how MIA can fine aircraft that go outside the noise area when the area itself is arbitrary and does not comply with Pan. Ops. A large aircraft at max RTOW will inevitably go outside the area because its take off speed is greater than that used to draw the limits of the noise area. . Take those departures out and the actual number of exceedences would be minimal.

At the present time the Airport Authority is happier blaming pilots rather than owning up to its own inadequacies. It has to stop.

[160to4DME]

Sky9

Isn't it surely the driver's responsibility to notify ATC at some time prior to departure if he/she considers they may not be able to adhere to the SID ???

ATC can then enter the magical NSD notation, and everyone except the Knutsford NIMBYs are happy :cool:

[sky9]

160 to 4DME

We are complying fully with the SID, the problem is that the noise charts are just fiction. As an example on the Conga departures off 06 the inside of the turn is drawn at 90kts.

On the WAL departures again off 06, at max RTOW, turning at the correct DME it is inevitable that you go outside the turn.

I suspect that the real problem is that if the noise charts were drawn in accordance with Pan Ops the noise areas would be so wide that half of Manchester and Cheshire would be covered and nobody would ever be fined. In PR terms with the local population that would be a disaster for the MIA.

[160to4DME]

Sky

Ahhhhhh, now I understand :rolleyes:

[Bally Heck]

Thanks for the Hansard link Sky9. Impressed and surprised that some sense is talked in parliament. (Not by Mr Osborne)

You can pretty well stay with most of the SIDs if you use raw data and anticipate the turns by a couple of tenths of a mile and go round the turn with take off flap. It does make for a pretty high workload at a time when the workload is pretty high anyway. Hardly surprising that a few of us get it wrong occasionally.

[sky9]

Bally Heck,

We do that (but surely you should be able to fly the SID without local knowledge)!! but it doesn't work on a heavy aircraft at max RTOW. Get the noise charts out , measure the radius of turns and check it against the groundspeed at Take Off Flaps. You will make it on 737 & 757 using heading select and take off flap, but the radius of turn increases by the square of the speed so the faster you go the "greater*greater" the radius. I don't think that it is surprising the Virgin and PIA go outside the MNR, I would have thought that a 747 to Lahore or Karachi is a heavy (fast) aircraft.

If you are really keen get a copy of the Pan Ops regulations (they are in the Jepp. Text Manual) and read the regulations. They are a mile away from what was drawn 25 years ago by the MIA.

[PFR]

Considering the thread and the concerns residents of Knutsford have made with noise, especially recently with their meeting in the Civic Centre (last Friday) and the TV piece on the local BBC news (North West Tonight, circa Tuesday), can I pose the following query to the experts ?
Considering that a significant level of concern/disturbance is from landing traffic generated by the fact that R2 (06R) is primarily used for landings when Easterly's prevail, as currently, bar between mid-day and 15:00 when operations swap to R1, what possibility exists to stagger arrivals between R2 & R1 ? Similar to that done at LHR described in another thread `Runway Open'.
That's to say when landings are required 06 use R1 for a given period (day about or week about) then swap to R2 for a similar period. Alternatively could the early hours say before 09:00 be prioritised for 06L with 06R being used afterwards until early evening, afterwhich landings would revert to 06L. Some similar arrangements could cater for weekends when as I see it significant disturbance occurs Saturday/Sunday mornings as people are lying-in (especially compounded by the summer months when people sleep with the windows open, when we get a summer !).
It may seem insignifcant but I'm sure that if MIA would make some gesture to use 06L for more arrivals like in the old days this would pacify a lot of the residents and improve their community relations.
For those not aware using 06R for arrivals means a/c are signifcantly lower and more over residential areas. Comments would be greatly appreciated.
I suspect that the ground infrastructure can't support 06R being used for departures if 06L is the arrival runway, especially in peak times, Am I right ? What implications for the STAR's also ?
Sorry it's so long, but I really would be interested in the professional opinion.
Many thanks PFR :)

[sky9]

PFR
You are absolutely correct in that the design of the runways and taxiways for 24R/06L only allow takeoffs on 24L and landings on 06R. The problem being that space doesn't allow parallel taxiways to the western end of the new runway.

The design is frankly a "buggers muddle" but then who is surprised by that? No doubt they will be back in a year or two with plans for a new runway to the north of Terminal 2, which they should have done in the first place.

I have heard on the grapevine that there are problems with the switch over time for the backup lighting power supply on 24R, anyone know anything?

[Wasps]

The minimum noise corridors are drawn to appease the local community and the SIDs designed to fit them. The MONTY and CONGA SIDs off 06L have to be flown at around 180kts to keep the radius of turn low, but the SRG of the CAA will not publish speeds as part of SIDs. We therefore fly the SIDs, as published, and get violations as a consequence. Welcome to Manchester Airport!

[cossack]

PFR
It is not feasible to utilise our runways in the manner you describe used at LHR. As you say yourself, the ground infrastructure is not there to facilitate this. The procedure you outline is do-able as was proved very capably yesterday but at a cost: delays.

For those not aware, yesterday morning from about 0745 local time, 06L was available for departures only, with a TORA of 2100m due to a badly damged light fitting. Aircraft unable to depart with this distance available were allowed to depart from 06R. 06R was still the arrival runway. The movement rate achieved was remarkable considering the 20+ departures from 06R (many of them "heavies") had to backtrack almost the full length of the runway in the face of arriving traffic. This lasted over 2 hours. The delay to departures needing to use 06R was about 15 minutes on top of the normal taxy time of 15 minutes. Who would tolerate that on a regular basis just to reduce noise in one area and move it somewhere else?

At this time it is not possible to spread the noise around more evenly by using different approach paths. Considering that the 6s are in use for less than 20% of the year (my estimate), I think you have little to complain about on the noise front! What about the residents to the north east of the airport. They get the noise for 80% of the time, with comparatively few complaints.

As for allowing some aircraft to land on 06L instead of 06R, we (ATC) are not allowed to offer the switch.

I do not understand your reference to STARs as they terminate at the holding fixes and what happens after there is of no relevance.

sky9
There is space for a parallel taxiway to 06R but it would require the two tunnels to be joined to make one long one. For the amount of times it would be used, I feel it would be difficult to make a business case when terminal expansion and parking are in short supply already.

I don't see any need for a third runway.

BTW It was a pleasure to be a part of D watch yesterday morning (as it is most days :D ) it was a great team effort!

[PFR]

Thank you for your replies Sky 9 and Cossack. Get the impression Cossack that your somewhat frustrated by my offerings, apologies if I've touched a raw nerve. Appreciate that MIA has come in for a lot of flack since the opening of R2, especially from residents of Knutsford. For one I appreciate that as controllers & pilots respectively your doing your jobs and with procedures that may not be ideal but have indeed been developed with consideration to the surrounding community. Just wondered if these could be improved upon.
Ref your observation for residents suffering 80% of the disturbance at the 24 end, for sure residents living under 24R have far more to tolerate and have done so since MIA was Ringway. However if the infrastructure was such that 24L could be used predominately for arrivals and 24R for departures both communities would surely gain benefit and no doubt residents at Wythenshawe and Stockport would be grateful for the relief. Again ground operations and infrastructure issues would need changing together no doubt with procedures to ensure that operators wouldn't suffer in getting to the terminals, a plus for the current situation with 24R as the arriving runway.
Appreciate that all these ideas have cost implications especially infrastructure changes, new taxiways etc (merging of road tunnels), but what price good community relations.
PFR :)

[sky9]

PFR

From a pilots point of view it really is a not starter. If aircraft were landing on 24L they would get very close to aircraft taking off on 24R. I will let acontroller tell you the technical reason because there will be one.

At the end of the day the answer really is if you don't like aircraft noise don't buy a house under the flightpath. I used to live under the flightpath some years ago and the 0650 Trident was really noisy!

[Not Long Now]

Just to let you drivers know it's not only you who get caught by noise restrictions. I control in the London TMA and if I 'inadvertently' vector an a/c before the noise restriction ends (above 4 for LL and 3 for KK, plus one million and one dotted lines on the radar to miss 'noise sensitive areas'), I can expect a little tap on the shoulder a couple of weeks later saying "why did you take an a/c off the SID before noise ended".
Strangely enough I can hardly ever remember why or where I vectored one a/c twenty days ago. It is possible, usually, to pull the RT recordings and see if it was me vectoring too early or the a/c "getting it wrong" should I deny all knowledge.
It seems it's all to do with blame and statistics, and which operators are currently top of the bad boys and trying to lower their profile.

Strangely enough, those who complain about the noise don't seem to be the ones who've been in situ since before the airport was built, and don't volunteer to drive back from the airport after their holiday via somewhere three hours away.
Well I live right under the BPK westerly departure from LL, and boy does it get noisy about 10pm. But I also live ten minutes from work. And I'm not moving.

Happy headings! :)

[cossack]

PFR
No apology required! Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Whether or not the practicalities of the situation can accomodate those opinions is what is at question here and in this case they cannot.

MA have gone to great lengths to make the introduction of R2 have as little impact on communities as possible. The Cheshire 106 agreement requires southbound jets above a certain size to fly a Honiley departure from the 24s. Well before the runway opened ATC were all too well aware of the implications this would have on the departure rate, MA were made aware of it, but they stuck to the agreement. So you can see they do try and foster good community relations at the expense of some delays, but the scenarios you have outlined go beyond what would be acceptable in business terms.

In an ideal world, parallel runways would not be staggered like at MAN and the terminals would be in between them. Sound familiar? In order to provide a segregated service (two runways operating independently of each other) as we do now, the runways would need to be 760m apart in order to comply with ICAO criteria. The choice is now yours. Do you build runways 390m apart and stagger them by 1850m as we have now, or do you try and build them 760m apart? Just think of the land that would have taken and the environmental impact. If MA had applied to build them 760m apart they would have got nowhere.

As it is they have an airport which is not constrained by runway capacity and with planned future terminal expansion will see them well into the future and the forecast traffic growth.

As sky9 mentioned, landing 24L and departing 24R would have its limitations. The runways would not be segregated so arrival spacing would have to be increased to permit departures. There would need to be very large gaps after every 3 or 4 arrivals to back-track those that have arrived (assuming no southside parallel taxiway was built). I would imagine that the overall movement rate would be well below what was achievable with only one runway. Not much of a return on your investment is it?

In the end what do passengers want? They want to be able to fly to where they want, when they want from where they want. Many of those people who complain about noise from Manchester Airport, are the very same people who would complain if their flights were delayed because of airport capacity constraints. You can't have your cake and eat it.

[ 22 July 2001: Message edited by: cossack ]

[160to4DME]

Taken from the MAAplc website today.
Following on from some comments on this thread re weight, aircraft size etc, it's interesting that Continental, operating 777s, are mentioned in the article.

More Airlines Receive Awards From Manchester Airport

Manchester Airport has again recognised airlines that have consistently worked with the airport to improve their track keeping performance over a 12 month period.

The latest airlines to benefit from the award scheme are Brymon Airways, Continental Airlines and Finnair. Joining them are Crossair and CSA who are receiving the honour for the second year running. Each airline was presented with a 'Target Achiever Award' by the Manchester Airport Chair, Councillor Brian Harrison and Manchester Airport Group Chief Executive, Geoff Muirhead at a presentation held at Terminal 2 recently.

Airlines are given specific instructions by Air Traffic Control to ensure that when they depart from Manchester, they follow a 'preferred noise route' or corridor until they reach a certain altitude.

During the planning process for the second runway, the airport entered into a legal agreement which contained performance targets including track keeping. The targets stipulate that 95% of all take offs should be 'on track'. Records are monitored each year and those airlines that achieve this goal receive a 'Target Achiever Award'.

The airport monitors the performance of airlines using very specialised, high tech equipment known as MANTIS (Manchester Airport Noise and Track Information System) which tracks all aircraft operating within a 30 kilometre radius of the runway. All aircraft tracking information is presented to the airline and monthly performance tables are published and reported to the airport consultative committee.

Councillor Brian Harrison, Chair of Manchester Airport said "The departure corridors are designed especially to keep aircraft away from the populated areas to minimise disruption and noise to local residents - therefore it is important that airlines stay on track"

John Spooner, Managing Director of Manchester Airport, added, " The reward scheme, which was launched a year ago, is just one way that the airport can recognise the efforts of airlines who are constantly striving to achieve those targets. I am delighted to see that Crossair and CSA have been awarded again this year and glad to see Brymon Airways, Continental Airlines and Finnair joining them. Indeed we hope many more airlines will follow in their footsteps."

Date 20/7/2001

[ 22 July 2001: Message edited by: 160to4DME ]

[sky9]

160 to 4DME
It's nice to see that it is appreciated. It goes to show that airlines and their pilots are trying very hard to make track keeping work, however MIA could make it a whole lot better by producing lats and longs for turning points. The facts remain that an aircraft can follow a SID exactly as published and be outside the published so called MNR.

[chiglet]

sky9,
Can you not program your FMS to read MCT PLUS XXX rather than Lat and Long?
There again, I'm only an ATSA!
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[PFR]

Once again Cossack, Sky 9 and others, thanks for your replies and your time. Just in case some are wondering I’m not a NIMBY and as `Not Long Now' chose I also chose to live close to an airport in order to have a short commute. I’m also one of those fortunate people (or is it sad?) who have an interest in and earn a living from aviation.
Apart from a semi-professional/personal interest in the subject, I find the debate (mostly occurring in the local papers) of note, especially its apparent affects on the local community. Unfortunately a lot of the discussion is emotive (fuelled by the press, as always) which I suspect will achieve very little, hence why I find it constructive to gain a professional perspective on the issue. I must take issue however with one point made by `Not Long Now' that those who complain about the noise don't seem to be the ones who've been in situ since before the airport was built. In fact, certainly around me, a large number of residents expressing concern (primarily with noise from landing traffic) are those that have been living where they are since the mid 60’s and 70’s, when the properties were built. It appears from the inputs here that there are significant difficulties in changing the current situation. Unfortunately in my limited correspondence with the airport Community Relations Department the quality of reply when outlining similar ideas to those contained in my earlier posts has been to put it mildly unprofessional and in some cases condescending. If the same has occurred to other residents it’s certainly not helping the understanding as to why things happen as they do. I’m sad that the professional face of MIA, being presented here by the likes of Cossack and others, who outline clearly the facts of how and why and are prepared to discuss different scenarios (be they impossible or not) is not the approach which comes across from the responsible individuals/department in MIA whose job it is to tackle these queries. Before it’s pointed out I do appreciate that the technical detail of airport operations my be lost on `joe public’, but it would be far better if the airport started out from the position that some of it’s correspondence may have the capacity to understand some of the finer points.
Anyway once again Cossack and others thanks for the explanations, I suspect that the likes of Jeff Gazard and CAMJAG (was it?) together with MP Osborne and others are only going to fuel the subject. Unfortunately as Osborne has already illustrated they may not understand the issues fully. This will be a shame as if constructive dialogue can take place between all the respective parties additional amicable arrangements may be found, even to include justification for taxiway additions/changes and where things cannot change MIA must be able to communicate the facts, detailed as they be, to similar individuals who can understand airport operations.
One final point. Your last para Cossack is very true and some residents I suspect have yet to come to terms with that.
Cheers PFR :)

[Scottie Dog]

Cossack, Chiglet or DME

As I know you all work together, all though maybe not on the same shifts, I wonder if you can enlighten me as to how the movement numbers are going - now that we have had both runways in use for sometime.

I see to recall a certain magical figure of 60 in one-hour having been attained last year and assume that this has probably been better already this year, but by how much?

Keep up the good work fellows (or lads and lasses as it may be!)

Scottie Dog
;)

[cossack]

Hi Scottie
The peak arrival rate is about 34/hr, then the traffic runs out! The peak departure rate is about 36/hr.

These events do not usually happen concurrently. The departure pushes are usually prior to and then again after the inbound push, therefore the single runway (bold because of a vested interest in keeping this figure going! :D ) hourly movement record of 60 from last year (h+00-h+59) has been exceeded only once so far and only by 1!

It does seem, however, that there are very busy periods which may run outside h+00-h+59, with traffic that may be well over 60/hr but those figures are not recorded! C'est la vie!

The present declared runway capacity is 57/hr which is a rate which will not cause ground congestion. As has been mentioned elsewhere, there are some problems in the mornings when there are numerous widebody aircraft around, with a shortage of parking.

Reaching figures in the high 50s/hr does not cause any great problems and is much less stressful on the controllers than it used to be. It doesn't take a mathematician to work out that with more space on the ground an hourly movement rate of 70/hr+ (IMHO) could quite easily be achieved.

A daily average this year is 680 which is about 50 more than last year. I think the record of 701 (Champions League final day a couple of years ago) will be broken this year.

PFR
I’m sad that the professional face of MIA, being presented here by the likes of Cossack and others, who outline clearly the facts of how and why and are prepared to discuss different scenarios (be they impossible or not) is not the approach which comes across from the responsible individuals/department in MIA whose job it is to tackle these queries.

I do not work directly for, or could be considered in any way, a spokesman for MA. NATS is a contractor providing ATC under contract to MA. I do know, however, that they read these pages and if what is said here in a level headed way is taken on board then it can only be for the good of everyone concerned.

Glad to be of help.

[ 23 July 2001: Message edited by: cossack ]

[PFR]

Cossack,
Thanks once again. PFR :cool:

[PFR]

Cossack,
Just one more question if I may, well two actually (hopefully you'll still pick up the thread)....
When using the 6's, arrivals appear to swap from 06R to 06L between 12:00 and 15:00 or there abouts. Is that correct and can you tell me why ? Is there also a limit for using 06R for arrivals in the evening/night, not after midnight ?
Hope you won't mind answering my queries again. With thanks in advance. PFR :)

[cossack]

06R/24L is only open from 0600 (0630 weekends) to 1200, and then from 1500 to 2100 local time, hence the switch.
It was agreed at the public enquiry that there would be no night use unless 06L/24R were to be unavailable for repair for example.

[PFR]

Thanks for the reply Cossack. Cheers, PFR :cool:

[BillTheCoach]

Having read this thread with great interest and having both professional and domestic interest in this subject I took the time to download and read the speech made by Mr. Osborne.

It is interesting that as the new MP for Tatton which is basically a fairly quiet constituency Mr. Osborne has jumped on the old media attention grabbing subject of Runway 2 at Manchester Airport as a way of making a name for himself very quickly.

I took time the other day to take a trip around the airfield with an Airfield Duty Manager and can only praise MIA for the environmental work which it has undertaken in the Bollin Valley which today looks more peaceful and tranquil than it has for many years. Indeed the only signs of environmental damager are where 'Swampy' and his mates had their encapmpent.

I accept that there is additional noise but overall the a/c are quieter than they were a few years ago and with airlines retiring the older and noiser a/c the problem should lessen in the future.

I live under the flightpaths and do not find the noise intrusive and can sit quite happily watching aircraft pass directly over my house.

Now some will argue I have a vested interest as I am in the aviation industry but none of my neighbours (all of whom are not) are bothered by aircraft departing off 24.

I think that this debate will go on and on if only because Mr. Osborne wants to keep it going.

[Onan]

BilltheCoach wrote:
"I think this debate will go on and on if only because Mr Osborne wants it to".

And both you and MAN don't want it to go on and on. :D

[sky9]

Chiglet
The FMS is programmed to turn at a DME as laid down in the SID, the problem comes in the wide variation of speeds on departures with higher IAS with higher TOW (on the same aircraft) leading to wider radii of turns.

The facts are that the MIA have no right to base their MNR's on specific points when the SID's do not define those points. That is why very few fines are levied.

[chiglet]

Sky9,
I have done umpteen "fam" flights from EGCC, and they have all met the "Noise/Distance/Climb/Speed profile.
BUT mostly they were "scheduled" flights.
I DO appreciate [honestly] the "Charter" Guys and Gals problems. :eek:
All I am saying is most "modern" a/c have a [half] decent FMS, so cannot weight be taken into consideration? Or am I asking for the moon? :)
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[ShotOne]

While we can question Mr Osborne's motives in making this speech, we cannot argue with the fact that he has picked up on that there is a huge disparity in the way that SID deviations are distributed amongst the airlines -100 out of 173 violations this year involved PIA or Virgin, and none involved BA which is the airport's biggest user. Also most responsible airlines DO respond to the warning letters. What is so wrong with forcing the ones which bin them to answer them?

MP's only agitate on subjects that the public complain about. There is no point in us bitching about Mr Osborne if airlines are in fact ignoring the rules.

[sky9]

Chiglet,

Its all to do with aerodynamics I'm afraid:
radius of turn = Vsquared/g*tan angle of bank.
It follows therefore that the radius of turn increases at the square of the speed or to put in laymans terms; heavier 767 covers more ground than a light one with the same angle of bank.

We do try, honestly, however people that draw MNR's don't understand aerodynamics. How do you explain the inside of the turn on Conga departures off 06 drawn at 90 kts. Fly that in a commercial jet and you will have a very close and meaningful meeting with residents of Bramall.

[chiglet]

Sky,
Honestly, not taking the Mick. BUT admittedly haven't flown on a 767 out of Manch [broad hint :D ]
Having worked there for umpteen [and then some] years iwould have thought [wrongly, as it turns out] that the SIDs "would" have been modded accordingly for greater AUWs.
I still stand by my earlier post about the SID map though :p
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[BillTheCoach]

Onan,

Don't get me wrong - I can be as big a critic of MAPLC as the next person but I firmly believe that the 'new' MP for Tatton is in this for its political exposure of him personally.

It reminds me of "The B3 bomber theory" in the film "Wag The Dog" - make enough noise and the press will think you are doing something !

[Onan]

BillTheCoach;
Purely political posturing on his part and i'm sure, at the end of the day, (no pun intended) the runway will be utilized to it's fullest capacity, and rightly so. :)

[BillTheCoach]

Onan,

I have spent the past couple of days roaming around the area near Runway 2 looking at new houses and have found the noise there any louder than it is in Poynton where I currently live.

I don't hear the good citizens of Woodford or Poynton screaming as loud as those in Mobberley !

[Onan]

Billthecoach

I would suspect that the complaint level would rise in accordance with the house prices as oposed to that of the decible level. :D :D :D

[Rockwell]

Bill the Coach

<<<Now some will argue I have a vested interest as I am in the aviation
industry but none of my neighbours (all of whom are not) are bothered by
aircraft departing off 24.>>>

<<<I don't hear the good citizens of Woodford or Poynton screaming as loud as those in Mobberley ! >>>

Well they would not be, would they :D

Since when has Poynton been anywhere near 24L or R departure SIDs?
Whereas Mobberley and Knutsford lie immediately underneath the runway
centrelines. And if it is a certain green curry 747 you even have to duck :eek:

[jongar]

I just wish all these twats who keep trying to cap the airports would just shut thier holes and crawl back into the house they bought. They cant believe that the airports were going to get less busy did they. The goverment, if it wants to do something useful, bold and dynamic, should buy the houses and turn them into an exclusion zone - sublet to gypsies. The should also doa compulsary purchase of land ajacent to LHR and built a new runway as well as T5.

Screw the NIMBY's

[BillTheCoach]

Rockwell, Poynton lies under 06 departures and can get as much noise as Knutsford allegedly does so I think the complaints could be just as vociferous.

I am inclined to agree with Onan that the good burghers of Mobberley believe that their house prices are driven down by the second runway.

I spoke with a builder yesterday who is selling identical houses in Alderley Edge and Northwich and there is £100,000 difference for the same design !

[chiglet]

As I said in a yonks earlier post, A lady DELIBERATELY bought her house on [very] short finals to MAN/EGCC, 'cos "She likes aeroplanes". Good for her. As to house prices Bill, snob value mate. Same here Town, £xx "County Set", add two or three naughts.
To get back to this thread. Noise, per se HAS diminished..No Tridents. Less Ba111/B727 and B737 200 series.
As Bunny Gunson says, it's blo*dy hard to hide an airport.
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[mallard]

Clearly someone has noticed that airports are noisy.
They are so let's close them.
Have you ever been stationary by a motorway?
What a racket!
Let's close them!
Do we want commerce or silence?
The aviation industry is continually under pressure to reduce noise, and rightly so, but what is the alternative?
Is there a serious suggestion that we should stop travelling?
Most modern aircraft are not all that annoying.
What I would ban, if I were ruler of the Universe, is the B737-200.
Are you listening MOL?

[Porky Speedpig]

Well said Chiglet! I used to live by Outer Marker of 24R. The only one you missed off your list was the VC10 Duck Of Iron. Magnificent but hardly comparable in nuisance terms with 777/330s etc. Anyone under the age of 60 who complains about aircraft noise near an airport should be politely ignored!

[chiglet]

Porkey, et al
I used to live in Denton [6 mile final 24] not a dual r/w in sught. When MAN/EGCC were on 06! I was "just after" noise abatement, so the Ba111s/B737s and DanAir B727s we knew ALL about them. BUT, we lived near a busy airport! That I worked there [at the airport] was immaterial [have I spelled that right?] ( spell check please, Danny!) As I have REPEATEDLY said, noise is not [really] an issiue
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[lumbalund]

I fly into and out of Manchester on a regular basis for PIA and as mentioned by SHOTONE my airline seems to have quite a few noise and track violations.Not wanting to make excuses here are my observations.The aircrafts are all 747classics,without all the modern day gismos.The navigation systems on board are LTN92 which are not approved for SID/STARS.The take off weight for east and west bound flights are between 330 to 350 tons with V2 at 173 to 179 kts.The departures that we follow are wallasey or stock both of which are based at 180kts,so you can see flying V2+10 you will get a track violation.I am also not surprised that the other airline having the same problum are Virgin as they operate a B747-200(calipso queen) out of MAN.These are problums I dont expect a person flying a EMB 145 or Airbus A-320 to understand as they have no idea what a 747 at 350 tons at V2+10 handles like but let me tell you gentlemen it aint a rabbit.
As far as SHOTONEs comment about th DOs not doing anything about it ,NOT TRUE ,if your name is on that flight that had a violation you get to see the very unhappy Chief pilot Training in person.Personally speaking I wish we could go back to Shannon. :cool: